Downing Street today bizarrely refused to accept that 20 people who have been fined for breaking the law broke the law.
The Met Police announced yesterday it would hand out 20 fixed penalty notices (PFNs) to people who attended parties in Downing Street and Whitehall during Covid lockdowns.
Scotland Yard warned more fines could be dished out in future - with Boris Johnson's own situation still hanging in the balance.
Tory ministers gave police the power to hand out FPNs from 2020 if they reasonably believed someone had "committed an offence".
And Justice Secretary Dominic Raab today accepted the 20 people fined over Partygate had broken the law. The Deputy PM said: "Clearly there were breaches of the regulations - that’s the only thing that could warrant the 20 fixed penalty notices."
Keir Starmer suggested Boris Johnson had lied to Parliament when he said all guidance was followed in No10.
Yet the PM still appeared to be in denial. Pressed over Mr Johnson’s view yesterday, his spokesman said: “It’s for the Met to make that judgment, rather than the Prime Minister.”
Today, No10 stood by that line in a toe-curling briefing to journalists. We have reproduced a large segment of it below. To spare our sanity, and yours, we've not included every single question.
The questions are from various journalists and the answers are interchangeable from the Prime Minister's official spokesman and his Press Secretary.
Does the PM agree with Dominic Raab that breaches of the regulations are the only thing that could warrant fixed penalty notices? “The Prime Minister said he respects the position of the Met, equally that this investigation is ongoing… you will hear more from him at the conclusion.”
He respects the position - does he agree with it? “As I say, my position hasn’t changed from yesterday”.
He doesn’t agree with Dominic Raab on that then, who explicitly said rules were broken and the law was broken? That’s something you wouldn’t bring yourself to say yesterday. Are you still maintaining that position, or do you agree with the Justice Secretary? “We are maintaining that position”.
So you disagree with the Justice Secretary on whether the law has been broken? “You’ve got my position from yesterday - it hasn’t changed.”
Isn’t the Justice Secretary, being the Justice Secretary, in quite a good position to determine whether the law has been broken or not? “As I say, there is an ongoing process here. The Met have come to a conclusion and started a process which relates to 20 fines and we fully respect that. What I’m saying is you will hear more from the Prime Minister at the conclusion of that process, rather than in the middle of it.
Given the PM and No10 clearly disagree with what the Justice Secretary said this morning, is he going to be having a word? “I wouldn’t characterise it like that… we respect the process but the investigation is not complete and we want to wait until the investigation is complete before commenting on that.”
So you do agree with the Justice Secretary then? “All I’m saying is…”
It’s one or other isn’t it? Either you agree with him or you don’t? “Our position on this hasn’t changed. We respect the process and there is an ongoing investigation so we need to wait for that to complete.”
Did the Justice Secretary mis-speak? “He’s been setting out the view, the Met have set out their view, and we respect the conclusions they have come to. But I’m saying we will not be commenting further on the detail of what happened until the investigation is complete.”
But you don’t respect it, do you? Because you’re saying you don’t accept that rules were broken? “That’s not what we’re saying. We’re saying we respect what the Met are saying, but as the PM said today, an investigation is still ongoing and there are not further details at this point so we need to wait for the investigation to complete in order to comment further.”
In these 20 cases, they are complete. Does the PM accept in these 20 cases, the law was broken? It’s concluded. There’s nothing else to say. “And of course we accept that, the Met are independent, they’re making decisions as they go throughout this investigation which remains a live investigation. It would not be right for me to give the Prime Minister’s view in the midst of an ongoing police investigation.”
Isn’t this actually about the fact that if the Prime Minister himself gets a fine, you don’t want to have to concede he’s broken the law? “Well, we talked about that hypothetical situation before. We will come forward and confirm that if it were to happen and of course you’d hear from the Prime Minister.”
(It goes on like this for some while until…)
Why is it difficult for you to comment on the 20 cases? Have the Met said anything to you about that, asking you not to? “It’s a clear function of the fact there is an ongoing Met Police investigation and we want to comment once that has concluded, not in the midst of it. And obviously the Met have set out their process where they are issuing 20 fines and they’ve said they may be going further, so we are not going to comment in the midst of that, but we respect the Met’s process.
Why do you think the Lord Chancellor has a different view on whether you can comment on the 20 cases at this point? “You’ve asked our position, we’ve set it out.”
Can you see why the position is a bit surreal from where we stand? The police are saying the law has been broken, the Justice Secretary who oversees laws is saying the law has been broken, but you won’t say the law has been broken. We don’t quite understand why you’re adopting that very strange position. “Well look, I think people will understand that… we wouldn’t be commenting during a live police investigation. We are maintaining that position that we set out. The Prime Minister commissioned both the Sue Gray inquiry that has led onto this, and we want to allow that to conclude in full before commenting in detail.
(And some more, until…)
In general terms, does the government believe a person who has been handed a fixed penalty notice has committed an offence? “I’m not debating what happens when an individual receives a fixed penalty notice, and we’ve talked about some of the processes around that.”
Sorry, if you’re not debating it, what are you saying happens if an individual is handed a fixed penalty? “I’m simply saying I’m not going to be commenting in the midst of an ongoing investigation.”
